SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
In software it's mostly accepted in professional circles that AI was used.
Not really. It's still very controversial in the tech community, with some embracing it and some rejecting it.
The Silmarillion is my favorite book, bar none. I think there are a couple of reasons why. One is that when I was a teenager reading LOTR, I picked up on all the references Tolkien made to the wider history of the world (as he intended, of course). I was super curious to learn more about who Fëanor was, who was Elbereth, what was "the West that is forgotten", and so on. So when I finally did read the Silmarillion, it scratched an itch that I had for quite a while and was very satisfying.
The second reason I like it so much is because of the way it's written. Honestly, that's surprising to me, because normally I care nothing for prose and view the words as simply a vehicle to communicate the story to me. But something about the way Tolkien writes the Silmarillion (and also LOTR, though not as much) really moves me. I suspect it's because he was intentionally modeling his work on the real life epics he knew so well, but either way it gets my blood pumping. One of my favorite passages:
Then Fingolfin beheld the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Oromë himself was come: for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat.
And Morgoth came.
It's so majestic (the whole passage, not just the bit I quoted). It really does elevate the story beyond what it would otherwise be, and make it something special.
True, but what I meant is that Frodo is somewhat old by our reckoning (as hobbits seem to live not much longer than humans do), at least relative to the ages one sees in fantasy protagonists. There are of course creatures much older than Frodo (Gandalf, Sauron and Sarumam being probably the oldest, since they were around before the world itself was created).
No, an LLM-generated text is not made by a human. LLMs are not like a camera, which is a mere tool. They are like hiring someone to write for you, then passing the work off as your own. True, that was something which happened before, but it was never considered as good as actually writing something, nor was it considered acceptable at all in most cases.
You claim what you really care about is some commitment that the writer has to the output. You want people to suffer enough that what they have to say may have some value.
That's a remarkable amount of words you stuffed in my mouth there. I said what I care about: that a human made it. All that nonsense about suffering is your own invention, not anything I actually believe.
What people dislike about AI sounding texts is that they are trite, not that they are AI generated.
No. I dislike that it is generated by an LLM. Ultimately it comes down to: I care what humans have to say, not clankers. If you can't be assed to actually write something, then I have no desire to read it.
I've been rereading The Lord Of The Rings. I grabbed the first volume when I went on a trip, just to have something to read, and it has been nice. It's been several years (maybe a decade?) since I last read it, so I've been enjoying reading it again. Stuff always hits you differently when you reread books. This time, I've noticed (for the first time) just how much elvish devotion to Elbereth seems inspired by Marian devotion among Catholics, and also just how old some of the characters are. Frodo is 50! I know it was right there in the text, but it never stood out to me before, and it's interesting given how young many fantasy heroes tend to be nowadays.
That isn't true, even among people who post here. We have multiple posters who have spoken positively in the past about the usefulness of ChatGPT
I think the "it's just marketing" people are more interested in seeming appropriately cynical and worldly than in trying to form a real mental model of Anthropic people.
I don't care at all about what I seem like. But I am cynical, certainly. That's because the AI companies have lied to our faces multiple times in the past in order to make the product seem more capable than it is, and I therefore expect them to do so again.
But, from personal knowledge of multiple employees there, they absolutely, 100% believe what they're saying.
Well then, like I said: every one of those people should be imprisoned for life for willingly endangering the entire human race. The "we are the only ones who can do it responsibly" argument is nonsense that doesn't hold a drop of water. If something is that dangerous, it's too dangerous for anyone to do, and the Anthropic employees (if they are telling the truth) are either too foolish or too amoral to get that. Therefore, they are too dangerous to society to have freedom and should be imprisoned for everyone's safety before they start working on something that really is as dangerous as they think AI is.
I agree with @Shakes that there's a good chance that this is all just for show to build up hype around Anthropic, just like... basically everything they do. But if it's not, then we should throw every single person involved in prison for the rest of their lives. If they actually believe that AI has a 10% chance of killing us all, and research it anyways, then their willingness to roll those dice is a threat to the rest of us which we shouldn't ignore. There basically are no "oh shit we shouldn't do that" limits that such a person will ever respect.
I'm not talking about people not spending time with their kids, and I have no idea why you are going on that road. I'm saying that someone has to be around to keep an eye on little kids. You need to change diapers if they are young enough, make them some food for lunch, etc. None of this requires the type of helicopter parenting you are bringing up out of nowhere. But it does require someone to be home, and many parents feel that they can't afford to have only one income in the household.
Sitting at home watching soap operas and scrolling tiktok while helicopter parenting your children away from learning basic responsibilities and competence is not productive.
This is absurdly uncharitable. I'm sure you can find women who are shirking responsibility and ruining their kids, but there are far more women who would do right by their kids given the chance to do so. Besides that, someone has to raise the kids, and their parents are going to do a much better job, on average, than daycare operators or teachers.
Yep, that's the one. It's brutal. I've read that if you know how the mechanics of the mission work it's not too bad, but going into it blind on an Ironman playthrough went very poorly indeed.
Grats on the clear! Classic Ironman is no joke, I assume the same is true for Commander Ironman in XCOM 2. I've tried a classic Ironman run in the first game, which came to an unceremonious end in the Newfoundland mission. I knew it to be an infamous mission but hadn't played it before, so I brought my A team... which got wiped out. This kills the campaign.
Overall I think XCOM 2 is neat, but not as good as the first game. I think the theme is a lot less interesting, and I dislike the constant pressure it puts on the player, especially at the strategic layer. And I might be unusual in this, but I actually thought the end of the story in the first game was really interesting and was looking forward to seeing where they went with it... but then they abandoned it. I don't hate XCOM 2 or anything, but EU is imo the better of the two overall.
But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style.
That is probably true, but not really indicative that things will improve. The labs do care about programming, and LLMs still suck at programming. So even the thing the labs have put probably the most effort into, the machine is still below the level of a competent human.
You could be right. I figured that he was intoxicated with something, but there are all kinds in this world.
That is possibly the oddest thing I've ever seen on the Internet. I can only imagine the level of regret that dude felt when he sobered up the next day.
Also, if you do have reliable reference material in hand, you can ask the LLM about topics within it and have something to double-check to make sure the clanker isn't just hallucinating. It can be more effective than reading the references straight through, depending on your learning style and how the material is written.
That makes sense. If there has been a rise in sex tourism, are there establishments which cater to that by having girls who speak Chinese and Korean? Or is that not really acceptable due to the politics you mentioned?
Thanks for the info, it was super interesting. I didn't know there was such a wide variety in the sex trade in Japan. Though of course, it's not like I'm particularly knowledgeable about the sex trade in the US, so it stands to reason I know even less about a foreign country.
I thought that soaplands and the like had a strict "no foreigners" policy? In which case it wouldn't matter how quick the flight was, you wouldn't really be able to go to Japan to get laid.
I have long said that the actual threat to democracy in our country is the hyper partisan attitude that led to calling Trump a threat to democracy. I still believe that, and I think we are likely to see that continue to erode our democratic government even after Trump is out of office.
I hope that LLMs will become so cheap and reliable that all the previously hidden stupidity will be aired out for all to see soon enough.
LLMs are one of the things making people stupider (and are themselves very stupid), so you shouldn't hold your breath on that.
The text explicitly tells you that it was pre-ordained. The text explicitly tells you that if the characters we follow didn't step up, someone would have. I can't stop you from selectively ignoring that to fuel your interpretation, but you're well into the realm of making stuff up and not going off what the books actually say.
- Prev
- Next

As for companies, they are indeed not rejecting AI. But that is driven by the corpo executive types, not programmers. Among actual programmers, my experience has been that it's fairly evenly split between people who are to some degree enthusiastic about AI, and people who don't find it useful. Of the latter, very few are flat out refusing to use it, but of course it's not like the rest have much of a choice given the current state of the industry. Even if they think it's an ineffective tool, not many are so strongly opposed that they will risk their livelihoods over it.
More options
Context Copy link